@ Goodlun- Okay, I think I've got a way to take IT, or any other profession, out of the argument I was trying to make way back when...though let me clarify something first...

Some of what has been leading to comments about misunderstanding, incoherence, and what not is that the term of "Societal Value" isn't really defined. I don't think you are saying that societal value is 100% captured by potential annual income, right? You agree that it is its own thing, maybe just well represented by someone's income?

See, if not, then there really isn't anything to discuss...it's classic circular reasoning, with the terms under discussion really just being two names for the same thing. So, saying person 'A' earns more money each year because they are of more value to society, and we know they are of more value to society because they make more money...it's a closed loop. Can't argue with it but it also is meaningless as an argument for anything...

So, assuming that you agree that "Societal Value" has independent meaning, there's another way to get at my point. Let's just stick with fire services. We would agree that fire personnel have real demonstrated value to society, yes? I know you addressed these types of professions earlier as a type of caveat, but this is a pretty big group of folks (as compared to some small group of outliers, like trying to make hay out of the salaries of pro football players), and you also did say something about the value society places on professions like these is really lip service (because if they really did value them they would show it with higher salaries, more or less)...so I think this profession can still be useful for this purpose. In fact, these types of professions might be a better example to use than most because members of society actually have some direct say on monies available to them (i.e., voting on levies and such).

Okay, so they have value...I mean, if I'm in a bad car accident and firemen are tearing open the wreckage to get to me before I bleed out, at that moment they are the most valuable people in the world to me. This happens many times a day all over the country. Fireman also preserve assets easily worth billions of dollars a year, just looking at the direct monetary value...right now, out west, fire fighters have been working against wildfires in an effort to prevent whole communities from being wiped out completely.

Apart from what they provide, there is also what they pay...one of the highest on-the-job mortality and serious injury and divorce rates of any profession in the country, and significant long term health effects, both mentally and physically, including much higher cancer rates. I put a link at the bottom of this post with actual statistics to reference.

So, given the benefit to society from their actions, and the risks/costs involved in performing those actions, I would say that their "Societal Value" is quite high. A little googling informed me that average firefighter salary tends to be right around the overall median wage, which in Columbus, Ohio is the low $40k's. Yes, the average firefighter isn't starving, but this strikes me as far out of proportion to their actual value to society. I think giving up years of ones life to possibly save mine ranks somewhat higher than "Average".

A finding that works even more against your argument, and surprised me to be honest, is that the vast majority of firefighters in the US are barely paid at all...I found stats that generally report 70-90% of firefighters in the nation are VOLUNTEERS! I knew volunteer fire departments weren't uncommon, but I had no idea they were a clear majority! Anyways, I would suggest that Communities still want and depend on their fire departments, but in many cases they apparently don't have the budget to pay the actual firefighters for their services.

So definite value, with little to no income in return in many cases, and individuals providing the same services having incomes ranging from zero to (whatever)...I would think this would be a problem for your position. What do you think?

Show me in this fucking wall of text where IiF is mentioned. It even fucking starts with @goodlun

Okay, I assumed wrong...sorry about that, I don't know at what point in the thread you might have stopped to post a response because it would always just show up at the end of the thread...other comments in "Great Wall of text" have referred to a ridiculously long response I posted for IIF a little ways back...

The original discussion I was involved in here was predominantly between myself, Goodlun, and Permalost...if you scroll back you'll see a lot of the posts are pretty much this long. Posts I've made on other threads are nothing like this, but this topic is different...really more of a philosophical debate, and those aren't always brief.

I agree with what you say, and generally your correct. The only reason I'm still writing on this thread is because Goodlun still seems up for having a real discussion...all the insults and such aside, he's still supporting his position with real input, not just flaming.

I respect that, so I'm responding to him. There is no "win" with this kind of thing. Goodlun and I will never fully agree on this issue. But, the discussion is interesting.

No, you really don't disagree. You and Permalost didn't pay attention to what he wrote.

Its how we as a society place "value" now you can certainly argue about our fucked up priorities as a society with certain individuals but in the end it is how we as a society measure our access to resources and measure of what peoples time and the what not is worth.

Neither one of you, nor really anyone, have argued against this position. Actually, minus PL's drug argument, you've actually provided examples to support this statement. The problem is YOU moved the goal posts and tried to change his argument.

That's why he flamed you and used your job as a point of reference. You even used the importance of who you helped and your low pay to support the quote above. You are arguing what you have inserted into his argument, not his actual position.

Okay, I assumed wrong...sorry about that, I don't know at what point in the thread you might have stopped to post a response because it would always just show up at the end of the thread...other comments in "Great Wall of text" have referred to a ridiculously long response I posted for IIF a little ways back...

The original discussion I was involved in here was predominantly between myself, Goodlun, and Permalost...if you scroll back you'll see a lot of the posts are pretty much this long. Posts I've made on other threads are nothing like this, but this topic is different...really more of a philosophical debate, and those aren't always brief.

I agree with what you say, and generally your correct. The only reason I'm still writing on this thread is because Goodlun still seems up for having a real discussion...all the insults and such aside, he's still supporting his position with real input, not just flaming.

I respect that, so I'm responding to him. There is no "win" with this kind of thing. Goodlun and I will never fully agree on this issue. But, the discussion is interesting.

It is referred to everything you have posted in here. If you can not make your point in three paragraphs then you have no point. There exceptions to this such as an article or using a ton of citations (which is a good thing). I suspect you don't have one though and just trying to one of those guys.

No, you really don't disagree. You and Permalost didn't pay attention to what he wrote.

Neither one of you, nor really anyone, have argued against this position. Actually, minus PL's drug argument, you've actually provided examples to support this statement. The problem is YOU moved the goal posts and tried to change his argument.

That's why he flamed you and used your job as a point of reference. You even used the importance of who you helped and your low pay to support the quote above. You are arguing what you have inserted into his argument, not his actual position.

Fair enough, I can respond to that. I'm going to include quotes and examples, so it'll be longer than 3 paragraphs, just FYI...and, for those that would stop reading here, you are provably wrong on every point...see below for why.

Some of the problem here is how we've defined terms...I address this in Post 244. In a nutshell, I never would have commented at all based on the quote you have there. In those terms, "Societal Value" doesn't exist...it's just another word for your income. Again, see Post 244 where this is clearly addressed.

Thing is, what I've always been responding to is something else entirely...

Way back in Post 88 Goodlun stated;
"Originally Posted by killface
Well it was only an theoretical example. The idea that usefulness for society can be measured by how much you get paid seems quite silly for me."

"We get that you think its silly. Also I didn't say what you get paid I said your ability to generate money. A Dr Volunteering his time is doing something good for society. He isn't making money doing so. However that time has a value = the market rate for his service. THAT MARKET RATE IS A GOOD INDICATION OF HOW MUCH GOOD HE IS DOING FOR SOCIETY. " (my emphasis)

I also have a post that is loaded with examples of Goodlun making similar statements (186). Please reference.

Does Goodlun also have plenty of quotes like the one you have there? Sure does, which is the "Incoherence" I mentioned in post 244. His position, and meaning of terms being used, keeps shifting.

I'm pretty clear that I'm responding to Goodlun's arguments of the first type...

Post 139- Keslet's first post:
"I'm intrigued by some of the statements I'm reading here. Are we really saying that an individuals income is a reasonable metric for their worth to society and, by extension, as a human being?"

There are plenty of other examples where I restate that this is what I'm talking about. I'm consistent on this throughout. My goalposts really don't change. My last post giving an argument to his position is 244, where I'm wrapping up with:

"So, given the benefit to society from their actions, and the risks/costs involved in performing those actions, I would say that their "Societal Value" is quite high. "

So, I have a really clear understanding of what I'm talking about, and it's definitely (one of) Goodlun's position(s). My arguments, like with firefighters, are in direct support of my counter position.

Goodlun started flaming me over using IT as an example, not for misunderstanding his position. His flaming (including referencing my profession) all revolved around value to society as an expression of importance, contribution, impact, etc. Nothing to do with the point he's making in the quote you have there. this is all in Post 142, where we find this statement:

"Folks if you want to make good money you have to do 1 of 2 things.

Do something other people will not do.

Do something other people can not do.

As you can see these 2 things both PROVIDE MORE TO SOCIETY than doing something everyone is willing to do and something that everyone is capable of doing. " (Emph. Mine)

Again, clearly relating to his position that I'm debating, nothing to do with the quote you posted. This has little to do with societies subjective impression of an individuals worth or messed up priorities, but with the idea that annual income is a valid and reliable metric of an individuals ACTUAL contribution to society and worth as a human being.

Irony. You changed his entire argument to fit your arrogance and I misunderstood? Yes, keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep better at night. You can put that feather in the same cap with "OMGERD, I called out a senior staff member."

Irony. You changed his entire argument to fit your arrogance and I misunderstood? Yes, keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep better at night. You can put that feather in the same cap with "OMGERD, I called out a senior staff member."

Let me get this straight, I'm the one responsible for the position explicitly stated in Goodlun's own words in Goodlun's own posts?

You are the one explicitly responsible for TELLING people what their words mean. Yes, even after they give you explanations, definitions and examples as to why you misinterpreted their statements.

No, you aren't goodlun. You are a guy who says he can admit when he is wrong, but 25 "walls of text" later it turns out it was a completely self serving statement.

It Is Fake, read Post 251 again, or better yet Goodlun's post that I quoted from (88). Killface flat out says that he disagrees with Goodlun about income representing "usefulness" to society, and Goodlun doesn't say Killface misunderstood or misstated his position, Goodlun DEFENDS THAT POSITION. This is very different from saying that society has messed up priorities and gives value to things with no benefit...this is flat out saying that he is talking about the actual contribution to society that individuals are making.

This was all established before I ever read the thread...my first post wasn't until 139. I didn't have to change anything, it's right there in black and white. I also give plenty of examples where Goodlun makes this some argument again and again.

This has always been the portion of his position I am responding to...I don't know how to say it any clearer than that.